The international athletics season may have drawn to a close last week but the autumn and winter months ahead promise to be highly significant both at home and further afield, after a year in which the sport see-sawed between the incredible and the incredulous.

At home the chief executive of UK Athletics, Dave Moorcroft, chose to fall on his sword after nine years in charge, while at the International Association of Athletics Federations the knives are out for its president Lamine Diack. The quest to replace Moorcroft and shake up British athletics will probably attract more interest here, but the future of Diack could have a greater impact on the sport as a whole.

In a scathing open letter last week, Luciano Barra demanded the resignation of the Senegalese Diack from his post. Barra was once a close ally of the former IAAF president Primo Nebiolo, the man credited with building the world profile of the sport in the 1980s and 90s - although the athletes may also have had something to do with it.

Barra accused Diack of incompetence in many areas but, despite having valid concerns about television rights deals, the competition structure and international development, the subject which looms largest is the stance taken on drugs.

Athletes themselves are increasingly broadcasting their opinions on how best to police the sport in a fair and equitable manner, that not only seeks to root out the cheats but also protects the innocent from being unfairly treated because of misguided zeal.

All sport is predominantly based on having strong competition within a framework of rules that everyone understands and adheres to. The main issue in the fight against drugs is that most athletes have little faith in the drug-testing system on a world level, despite the many positive moves made in recent years.

The inception of the World Anti-Doping Agency has begun to address the issue of sports policing themselves and is trying to eradicate the lack of uniformity of policy existing between international federations. However, innocent athletes still feel somewhat exposed and in Lausanne at the weekend some had the opportunity to voice their concerns to those who still think they are doing all they can.

The IAAF hosted a world anti-doping symposium in the Swiss town, apparently unconcerned by the fact that if you ask people for their opinions you might just get some you do not actually like. Behind the scenes the governing body will tell you it is making serious inroads into the network of drug supply and usage but there is little evidence to support that claim. The subject of out-of-competition testing is one which highlights many anomalies in the differing approaches taken by governing bodies, fuelling the athletes' uncertainty.

In front of 350 delegates, Paula Radcliffe was one of those calling for a more concerted effort to make out-of-competition testing a simpler yet more robust process. Her request for individual blood profiling is supported by many athletes as it both protects their innocence and provides another tool to assist detection and deterrence.

The IAAF knows the effectiveness of profiling in helping to target likely cheats, so what is there to be reticent about? The inability to conduct A and B sample tests within a period of time which protects the integrity of a urine sample is another no-brainer and if the labs are struggling to cope then we should get more of them.

Radclife also highlighted the need for absolute independence between the sporting federations and the agencies charged with conducting the drugs tests. It is easy to be cynical about countries who appear to have a cosy arrangement between athletes, coaches and those whose job it is to provide rigorous testing discipline, yet I still believe this country leaves itself open to accusations from others.

UK Sport goes out of its way to ensure such accusations are unfounded, but as the main provider of funding for our medal-winning programmes it still seems inappropriate that it also oversees the anti-doping procedures.

Its undoubted reputation and robust processes would be easily transferable to an independent body and as a bonus would also allow for some flexibility of approach. From Paula's account of the symposium, it seems some clarity of thought and purpose would suit everyone's needs.

The steps needing to be taken are not giant ones and are likely to require some financial backing, but anyone hoping for re-election or seeking higher office in the coming months may be well served, at least in the athletes' eyes, by promising to take them.